Chapter 5: Law and regulation

Chapter 6: Insurance industry

William Solecki,1,a Cynthia Rosenzweig,2,a Reginald Blake,3,a Alex de Sherbinin,4 Tom Matte,5 Fred Moshary,6 Bernice Rosenzweig,7 Mark Arend,6 Stuart Gaffin,8 Elie Bou-Zeid,9 Keith Rule,10 Geraldine Sweeny,11 and Wendy Dessy11 1City University of New York, CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities, New York, NY. 2Climate Impacts Group, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY. 3Physics Department, New York City College of Technology, CUNY, Brooklyn, NY; Climate Impacts Group, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 4 Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, Palisades, NY. 5New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY. 6NOAA CREST, City College of New York, CUNY, New York, NY. 7CUNY Environmental Crossroads, City College of New York, CUNY, New York, NY. 8Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY. 9Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. 10Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ. 11New York City Mayor’s Office of Operation, New York, NY

Introduction to <i>Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response</i>

Water sprays from an open fire hydrant in Brooklyn, New York, in the midst of a July 2010 heat wave that affected much of the eastern United States.In 2007 the New York City Department of Environmental Protection first teamed up with Alianza Dominicana, a Washington Heights community organization, to educate city residents about the appropriate use of fire hydrants and other ways

Coastal communities are becoming increasingly aware of the risks to local infrastructure from more frequent and severe flooding, more extreme storm surges, and sea-level rise. As local governments are responsible for the lion’s share of land use decision-making and infrastructure development in coastal communities in the United States, local governments in the coastal zone will play a key role in adapting to the changing climate. Local decision-makers are facing hard questions about whether to build new infrastructure, adapt existing infrastructure to new standards, continue maintaining existing infrastructure as is, or abandon infrastructure altogether. Monroe County, Florida, for example, has begun to factor sea-level rise considerations into decisions related to road improvement projects, creating specific design standards addressing elevation and working to weigh the benefits and costs of different adaptation options such as elevating roads. Local governments are making these decisions in the context of increasingly unreliable and aging road systems, all while meeting current stormwater criteria which may require drainage improvements. Local decision-makers also are recognizing that crucial infrastructure decisions that directly affect their adaptation success are sometimes out of their control. In the case of the City of Tybee Island, Georgia, for example, tidal flooding restricts access to U.S. Highway 80 on an ever-increasing basis—yet the highway, the only road leading to the island, is not under the city’s jurisdiction but that of the Georgia Department of Transportation. To further complicate matters for local governments, both taking action and failing to act could result in either tort or “takings” liability in cases where a poorly maintained road results in harm to life or loss of property value from diminished access. Using the duty of state and local governments to maintain roads as a focus, this Article explores the complexity of adaptation at the local level as the impacts of climate change become more pronounced. Specifically, this Article presents an analysis of coastal communities in four South Atlantic states—Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina—that are currently facing questions about how to protect property and infrastructure as sea levels rise and flooding increases. This Article distills the findings of an interdisciplinary research project funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), Florida Sea Grant, Georgia Sea Grant, South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, and North Carolina Sea Grant. It also consists of a regional analysis comparing how tort and local government law can both further and hinder climate change resilience planning and climate adaptation efforts across these four states. Given that the federal government has offered little in terms of legislation, policy, or funding to direct or support climate adaptation activities, local efforts—and the litigation that inevitably results—are on the forefront of establishing the framework for defining adaptation policy more broadly and influencing the contours of tort and land use law. This Article, therefore, fills an important research gap in existing climate change literature, as it discusses how increased flooding at the local level is putting pressure on traditional conceptions of government duties, immunities, and authorities. This Article also uses roads as a case study to explore how sea-level rise is altering planning, maintenance, and funding for public infrastructure. This discussion focuses on local duties and responsibilities to build, rebuild, modify, or maintain existing roads for two primary reasons: (1) it is a widely shared function among jurisdictions and is the most obvious and visible type of infrastructure to the public, and (2) roads and highways, which are crucial to trade, defense, and nation-building, have long been under the purview of government regulation and funding in the United States. Recently, roads have also become a focal point in local government efforts to address rising sea levels and increased flooding. While sea-level rise may seem like a distant threat, many of its effects are being felt now, as low-lying coastal areas such as Norfolk, Virginia; Brunswick, Georgia; and Monroe County, Florida are experiencing increased nuisance or “sunny day” flooding occurring during seasonal or average high tides. Such flooding typically affects roads, temporarily closing them and increasing maintenance and repair costs. Residents who rely on these roads, often find themselves cut off from their homes, businesses, workplaces, schools, and local hospitals. In this way, sea-level rise and the flooding associated with it have become increasingly familiar and imminent, making roads the “climate change canary in the coal mine” for local governments. Part I of this Article briefly discusses recent sea-level rise issues and coastal science most relevant to the South Atlantic states—North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Part II analyzes and compares each state’s road ownership and maintenance duties, first by addressing the threshold question of ownership and jurisdiction, and then by explaining the multi-step analysis that governments must take to evaluate their duties to maintain roads in order to avoid liability. Part II also outlines the wide differences among the four states in our study area and observes a common thread, namely, that in almost each instance, local governments are faced with conflicting pressures that are likely to reward inaction over action and favor short-term political compromises over strategic investments in adaptation. This Part then details how counties and municipalities can discontinue their duties to maintain roads through the process of abandonment and how abandonment can lead to takings liability. Part III offers three proposals for encouraging coordinated adaptation action and protecting local governments that take action to address climate impacts: (1) redefining the scope of the duties that define reasonable conduct for governments in making decisions about public infrastructure in an era of rising sea levels; (2) defining the scope of sovereign immunity protections in a way that encourages innovative and creative decision-making in an era of climate uncertainty; and (3) calling for consistent adaptation duties and authorities at the state level as a crucial first step in mending the regulatory patchwork that currently exists at the state, county, and city levels in our four-state study area. Part IV concludes with a summary of observations and recommended next steps.

Green Economy and Infrastructure Contributions of USDA Urban and Nonfarm Soil Projects in the U.S.

Radley Horton,1,a Daniel Bader,1,a Yochanan Kushnir,2 Christopher Little,3 Reginald Blake,4 and Cynthia Rosenzweig5 1Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, NY. 2Ocean and Climate Physics Department, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY. 3Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Lexington, MA. 4Physics Department, New York City College of Technology, CUNY, Brooklyn, NY. 5Climate Impacts Group, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY

New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report. Chapter 3: Static coastal flood mapping.

Managing flood risks in a changing climate

New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report. Conclusions and recommendations.

New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report Chapter 5: Mapping Climate Risk

In “The Long Road to Recovery: Environmental Health Impacts of Hurricane Sandy” in the May 2013 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, Manuel (2013) provided critical insight from the frontlines about ongoing environmental health threats from Hurricane Sandy. While health risks rise along with the sea levels, policies to help prepare coastal communities for future threats are lagging. Without new policies that reflect the lessons of Hurricane Sandy and a changing climate, this opportunity to improve preparedness will be lost and the health of coastal residents will continue to be threatened. The storm surge accompanying Hurricane Sandy caused an all-time record-breaking flood height of 13.88 ft, which included effects of an estimated 9.23-ft flood surge (Freedman 2012). Before Sandy, flood projections based on global climate change did not include this level of storm surge until the 2050s, when it was expected to result from a 100-year storm event (New York City Panel on Climate Change 2009). We don’t have as much time to prepare as we thought we did. The tools we use to plan for storm flooding, especially floodplain maps, need to be quickly updated to fully reflect the new realities of climate change. Many parts of New York City that were inundated during Sandy were not within Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) flood zones and thus were not prepared for flooding. Half of all the affected residences and half of affected buildings of all types were outside of FEMA’s then-mapped 100-year floodplain (New York City Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency 2013). Policy gaps are hampering preparations for the storms that we can expect with climate change. In early 2013, FEMA updated the flood risk maps for much of the New York–New Jersey region, some of which had not been updated since 1983 (FEMA 2013). The new flood maps of New York City and Westchester County showed 35,000 more structures at risk of flooding, doubling the numbers of at-risk structures (Buckley 2013). Unfortunately, the updated maps do not include future vulnerability from climate change (Bagley 2013). FEMA has a policy prioritizing agency-wide integration of climate change adaptation in planning and actions (FEMA 2012), but it failed to move forward on directives to evaluate climate change implications on disaster planning and on the National Flood Insurance Program. Now in the aftermath of Sandy, FEMA must take action. The agency can make a difference in coastal communities by requiring states to account for climate change in their hazard mitigation planning. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, signed into law in July 2012, further aims to improve floodplain maps (National Association of Realtors 2013). However, FEMA has not yet committed to a timeline for producing new maps that incorporate the latest climate vulnerability projections, and in the meantime, communities are at risk from rising sea levels and storm surges influenced by climate change. Hurricane Sandy is a stark example of the cost of inaction and not being prepared. Recent estimates are that Sandy cost at least $70 billion in damages, with only half of that insured (SwissRe 2013). Research shows that the short-term damages are the tip of the iceberg. For example, long-term mental health distress and disability were pervasive post-storm effects among people displaced after Hurricane Katrina, > 2 years after the storm (Abramson et al. 2008). Factoring in the health impacts from hurricanes can raise cost estimates by hundreds of millions of dollars—billions when mortality valuation is included (Knowlton et al. 2011). Preparedness for flood events has been shown to be cost effective, with benefits of efforts to reduce losses from natural hazards outweighing the costs by a factor of 5 to 1 for flooding (Rose et al. 2007). Hurricane Sandy was a wake-up call not limited to the Northeast: An estimated 53% of Americans live in coastal counties now, and that is excpected to reach 75% by 2025 (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2009). Because of climate change, hurricane storm surges are worse than in the past, and hundreds of millions of people must be prepared. The public health concerns highlighted by Manuel (2013) must be translated into actionable, up-to-date preparedness policies at the federal, state, and local levels. Climate change is a matter of health, fueling extreme weather events that can challenge even strong, resilient people. By taking the climate-preparedness challenge seriously, we stand to save lives, save dollars, and create healthier, more secure communities. Let’s not squander Sandy’s call to get ready while we still can.

Cities are at the forefront of the battle against climate change. We are the source of approximately 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. And as the climate changes, densely populated urban areas—particularly coastal cities—–will disproportionately feel the impacts. Those of us in local government recognize the importance of national and international leadership on climate change. But we are not waiting for others to act first. Under PlaNYC, New York City's comprehensive sustainability plan, most of our efforts have focused on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Initiatives including the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, which will increase energy efficiency of existing buildings, and retrofitting ferries to use cleaner fuel, will help us meet our goal of reducing the city's emissions by 30% by 2030. These actions alone, however, will not stop climate change. We already face climate risks today, including heat waves, blackouts, flooding, and coastal storms. With climate change these risks will only increase. To ensure that New York City is resilient to existing and future climate risks, we must take further action. Through a generous contribution from the Rockefeller Foundation, I convened the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), which gathered the leading climate change scientists, academics, and insurance, risk management and legal experts. These experts helped develop a framework and tools to assist the City create a risk-based response to climate change that is grounded in state-of-the-art science information. In February 2009, the NPCC released the most detailed climate risk information for any major city in the world; this volume of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences presents the NPCC's full findings. The NPCC climate change projections put numbers to what we already know: climate change is real and could have serious consequences for New York if we do not take action. I appreciate the hard work of the members of the New York City Panel on Climate Change. Through PlaNYC, the City will build on their work as we craft strategies to improve the city's resilience to climate. Building climate resilience can take many forms, including increasing our understanding of climate risks and vulnerabilities, hardening facilities and assets to prevent impacts, educating vulnerable populations about risks, and ensuring that we can quickly resume operations after weather events occur. In the coming months, the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, another PlaNYC initiative, will release a plan detailing how Task Force members will prepare the city's critical infrastructure for warmer temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and rising sea levels. Planning for climate change today is less expensive than rebuilding an entire network after a catastrophe. We simply can't wait to plan for the effects of climate change. The NPCC and Rockefeller Foundation's contributions to the City's climate resilience efforts will help ensure that we create a greener, greater New York for future generations. In 2008, Mayor Bloomberg established the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), with the mandate to provide New York City with the most up-to-date and comprehensive scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information about climate change and its impacts on the city and environs. Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response is the first report of the NPCC. The report will help New York City develop, adopt, and implement policies to adapt the city's critical infrastructure to the changing climate. This NPCC report outlines a powerful and novel framework for deploying sophisticated tools of risk management to address the city's climate adaptation challenges, and details with rigor and insight the critical challenges that climate change poses to New York City's energy, transportation, water, and communications systems. The report also presents a coordinated set of climate projections prepared by the NPCC to be used by the many public agencies and private-sector organizations that manage critical infrastructure in the region as they develop adaptation strategies, and it describes how legal and regulatory tools can support adaptation policies. The challenges facing the insurance industry and the use of insurance to reduce climate risks are also described at length. A final section sets forth the indicators and monitoring activities needed to inform Flexible Adaptation Pathways as the City and region move forward. The NPCC report is the product of the committed scientists and experts in the New York City region who served as authors, led by Co-chairs Cynthia Rosenzweig and William Solecki. The dedicated Science and Policy Team at the Columbia Earth Institute and the CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities organized the process that has resulted in the production of this landmark report. It is becoming recognized throughout the world that cities have a crucial role to play in responding to climate change. The NPCC 2010 Report puts climate change adaptation in New York City in the broader national and international contexts and helps establish New York City as a thought and policy leader in this urgent endeavor. Climate Change Adaptation in New York City will be widely read around the world, both for its specific insights and also as a roadmap for other cities in preparing plans for climate change adaptation. The work of the NPCC is a pioneering activity for which all New Yorkers, and all others around the world who will benefit, should be most grateful. The Rockefeller Foundation also merits our gratitude for the generous support it has provided to this endeavor. Climate change will have a profound impact on New York City and its residents as it alters environmental baselines on which the urban infrastructure was built. Despite this, both the City and its stakeholders have a wide range of tools and resources with which to respond to the problem. Key insights in the following report derive from the highly integrated connections between science and public policy as they relate to climate change. The New York City Panel on Climate Change, for example, comprises a number of scientists and other technical experts capable of considering the issues at hand with a view to understanding the potential impacts of climate change and options for adaptation. The City University of New York is well placed to contribute to the multifaceted complex questions of climate change and how the city will be affected. This requires a multidisciplinary approach that can draw from the deep resources of the colleges that make up our institution. In addition, the New York City Panel on Climate Change had ongoing, continuous, and fruitful communication with the Mayor's Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability, and the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The collaborations brought forward in this document embody the culmination of a first step in a science–policy linkage that will be required to effectively address climate change in New York City. In addition, these collaborations show how great universities in a great city can link together to make a positive difference in the lives of its citizens.

More states address pharmacists’ provider status recognition

Appendix II: NPCC 2015 technical details.